At this time we can not do removals. We strongly urge you to let the bees live. If they are in a place that they are not too bothersome think about leaving them. Otherwise try to find someone to remove them.

It has come to our attention that some state agencies are advising citizens to kill bees! Please reconsider the long term costs to this!

……And then this. Her bees, the ones she had been raising in Red Hook, Brooklyn, and on Governors Island since May, started coming home to their hives looking suspicious. Of course, it was the foragers — the adventurers, the wild waggle dancers, the social networkers incessantly buzzing about their business — who were showing up with mysterious stripes of color. Where there should have been a touch of gentle amber showing through the membrane of their honey stomachs was instead a garish bright red. The honeycombs, too, were an alarming shade of Robitussin.

“I thought maybe it was coming from some kind of weird tree, maybe a sumac,” said Ms. Mayo, who tends seven hives for Added Value, an education nonprofit in Red Hook. “We were at a loss.”

An acquaintance, only joking, suggested the unthinkable: Maybe the bees were hitting the juice — maraschino cherry juice, that sweet, sticky stuff sloshing around vats at Dell’s Maraschino Cherries Company over on Dikeman Street in Red Hook.

Mr. Selig, who owns the restaurant chain Rice and raises the bees as a hobby, was disappointed that an entire season that should have been devoted to honey yielded instead a red concoction that tasted metallic and then overly sweet.

He and Ms. Mayo also fear that the bees’ feasting on the stuff could have unforeseeable health effects on the hives.

Bees need plants, we need to help ensure they do not become diabetic from our produced ¨foods¨.

Open Letter to the British Bee Keepers Association

January 10 2011

Since 2001, the British Bee Keepers Association has been receiving in the region of £17,500 per annum from pesticide manufacturers Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and Belchim in return for the BBKA’s endorsement of several insecticides as ‘bee-friendly’.

The BBKA policy of accepting money from such corporations, taken without consulting the membership, has been condemned by many of its members, other European bee keeping associations and some NGOs as unethical.

While the Executive have now changed their mind again and claim to be about to drop the direct endorsement of pesticides, they have not ruled out accepting money from pesticide manufacturers under other pretexts.

And there are still some very important questions that remain unanswered.

We call on the BBKA to sever all financial ties to manufacturers, sellers and promoters of any substance known to be or likely to be toxic to bees or other insects.

Günter Friedmann, professional Master Beekeeper, Leader of the German group of Demeter-certified Beekeepers

Sky McCain, Wholesome Food Association

Nick Delaney, Somerset beekeeper

Patrick Moulesdale, Somerset Beekeeper

Nick Mole, Pesticide Action Network UK

Rebecca Hosking MSc, MBE, farmer

Tim Waygood, farmer

Maddy Harland, editorial director, Permaculture Magazine

Teresa van Dijk, research scientist, Netherlands

Emma Hockridge, Head of Policy, Soil Association

Lord Peter Melchett, Soil Association

Amanda Williams buzzaboutbees.net @helpthebees

Graham White, environmental campaigner, writer, beekeeper

Pete Riley, GM Freeze

Philipp Mimkes, Coalition against BAYER Dangers (Germany)

Jessie Jowers and Carlo Montesanti, Bee Guardian Foundation

Matt Adams, CEO, The Good Gardeners Association

Miss Adebisi Data Adekunle Slow Beekeeper (UK & Nigeria)

Satish Kumar, peace campaigner

Patrick Holden CBE, Director, Sustainable Food Trust

Carol and Neil Klein

(A number of other people wrote to indicate their support, but were unable to include their names here due to conflicts of interest, or for other reasons.)

These are the key questions that need answering if the BBKA wishes to be seen as fairly representing the interests of British bees and bee keepers:

(1) When the BBKA Executive made the decision to endorse the initial four insecticides, what due diligence procedures did it employ that led to the conclusion that these insecticides were ‘bee-friendly’? Did the manufacturers provide peer-reviewed, independent research to back up their claims?

(2) Was the Executive aware, for example, of the research (i) published in 1995 – 6+ years before the decision – that demonstrated deltamethrin (one of the endorsed pesticides) to be deadly to bees, even in extremely small doses? And the research (ii) published 1993 that clearly states ‘Cypermethrin is highly toxic to bees’?

(3) If the Executive was aware of this research, what led it to ignore or override its findings?

(4) If the Executive was not aware of this research, does it still consider that it undertook due diligence before endorsing these pesticides?

(5) Did the Executive, during the subsequent years of endorsement, keep a review on published research about the endorsed pesticides?

(6) And is the Executive familiar with the research (iii) published in 2005 that shows both cypermethrin and deltamethrin to be ‘highly toxic to honeybees’? If not, please review your answer to Q5.

(7) It is clear from Dr Bernie Doeser’s review of the science (sent to BBKA November 2 2010) that the very pesticides the BBKA endorsed are very far from being ‘bee-friendly’; in fact three of them are among the five most toxic pesticides in their class.(iv)

In the light of this review, do you still think you made the right decisions? And will you be taking up Dr Doeser’s generous offer of expert help and advice in such matters?

(8) In the light of the above, the BBKA executives who were responsible for the endorsement policy appear to have been either:

(a) negligent in their assessment of published research, or

(b) reckless in their endorsement of products known to be toxic to bees.

Which do you consider to have been the case?

(9) Why did the BBKA Executive fail to support their colleagues in Germany, Italy, France, Spain and Belgium in a call for the systemic, neurotoxic, neonicotinoid insecticides Imidacloprid, Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin to be removed from the European list of permitted agricultural chemicals? (v)

(b) BBKA members are not again embarrassed by having to apologize to the rest of the world for being represented by a body that endorses bee-killing chemicals?

(c) Members of the BBKA Executive, whether elected or co-opted, make a full, public declaration of any financial, academic or research interests that they hold in partnership with pesticide companies, the agricultural, pharmaceutical and food industries, – or any other industry that could be deemed a conflict of interest.

(d) BBKA supports the organic/pesticide-free farming movement, including the Soil Association, the Wholesome Food Association, Garden Organic and the Biodynamic Agricultural Association, in their encouragement to farmers to use non-chemical growing methods?

‘When the logic of history hungers for bread and we hand out a stone,
we are at pains to explain how much the stone resembles bread.’
Aldo Leopold, The Land Ethic, 1948

Update 16th January 2011

Following the ADM on 15th January, BBKA spin doctors posted this message on their site. What they failed to mention was that the executive pre-empted the motion from Twickenham BKA and forced a change to the wording, which, had it been voted through, would have stopped them accepting money from pesticide companies under any pretext. They have thus demonstrated that they have no intention of cutting financial ties with these corporations.

The questions above remain un-answered, along with the following:

When exactly did they withdraw from the endorsement contracts?

Why are they refusing to let the membership have sight of the contracts? Citing ‘commercial confidence’ isn’t sufficient.

Why do they refer to the pesticide manufacturers as the ‘crop protection’ industry? The BBKA has no mandate or responsibility to promote the agri-chemical industry.

Why do they not publicly and formally support the other UK, European and international agencies (environmental & apicultural) in calling for a ban on the use of neo-nicotinoids, especially in the UK?

SOURCE: Fast Company The world honey bee population has plunged in recent years, worrying beekeepers and farmers who know how critical bee pollination is for many crops. A number of theories have popped up as to why the North American honey bee population has declined–electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate change have all been pinpointed. Now a leaked EPA document reveals that the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists.

The document, which was leaked to a Colorado beekeeper, shows that the EPA has ignored warnings about the use of clothianidin, a pesticide produced by Bayer that mainly is used to pre-treat corn seeds. The pesticide scooped up $262 million in sales in 2009 by farmers, who also use the substance on canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat, according to Grist.

The leaked document (PDF) was put out in response to Bayer’s request to approve use of the pesticide on cotton and mustard. The document invalidates a prior Bayer study that justified the registration of clothianidin on the basis of its safety to honeybees:

Clothianidin’s major risk concern is to nontarget insects (that is, honey bees). Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic. Acute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis. Although EFED does not conduct RQ based risk assessments on non-target insects, information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long-term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.

The entire 101-page memo is damning (and worth a read). But the opinion of EPA scientists apparently isn’t enough for the agency, which is allowing clothianidin to keep its registration.

To create a new society, we have to figure out ways to resist the social structures and institutions that oppress people and are destroying the earth. We have to create alternative institutions that can meet people’s needs based on cooperation, sharing, free will, beauty, pleasure and ecological sustainability. Doing these things means we are re-organizing our priorities away from mainstream goals such as achieving success and getting material possessions.

We will no longer offer or accept run down genetics such as those maintained by mainstream apiaries.

All our offers starting in April 2011 will be from UNTREATED/CHEMICAL FREE, genetically diversified stock acquired from southern regional feral hives, swarms, and other genetically diversified sources.

Bee demise – Are GMOs the missing link? – Sierra Club press release, March 22 2007
Are honey bees the canary in the coal mine? What are honey bees trying to tell us that we should pay attention to?
One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators. Yet food production may be severely impacted by the recently reported Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Beekeepers are reporting estimates as high as 80% loss of their honey bee colonies.
There’s a link that’s not being investigated. Highly respected scientists believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of CCD.
Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club’s Chair of the Genetic Engineering Committee states, “In searching for the cause of massive honey bee losses nationwide, we must leave no stone unturned to find the answer. Is the release of genetically engineered organisms the smoking gun?”
This past decade we are seeing releases into the environment that we have never before seen on this planet. Genetic engineering involves the artificial transfer of genes from one organism into another, bypassing the protective barrier between species. Scientists admit that unintended consequences may occur due to the lack of precision and specificity in the DNA sites on different plant chromosomes where the inserted genes randomly end up. According to the prominent biologist Dr. Barry Commoner, “Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic.”
Regulators don’t look, so they don’t find. The USDA and EPA have failed to adequately assess the potential for lethal and sublethal impacts of engineered crop pesticides on pollinators like honey bees and wild bees, including the larvae brood and young bees. They have failed to study the effects of the practice of feeding honeybee colonies genetically engineered (GE) corn syrup and parts of recycled hives containing additional GE food residues.
Considering that loss of honeybee pollinators can leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers, it would be prudent to use caution. If genetically engineered crops are killing honeybees, a moratorium on their planting should be strongly considered.
In a letter sent to the Senate and House Agriculture Committees sent yesterday, Sierra Club urges our elected officials to initiate investigations to determine if exposure to genetically engineered crops or corn syrup is the missing link.
To read the letter: http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2007-03-21.asp
Contact: Sierra Club – Laurel Hopwood – 216-371-9779 – lhopwood@adelphia.net